Site Search Navigation

Search NYTimes.com

Loading...

See next articles

See previous articles

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

BlogTalk: Wars at Home

By Maria Newman October 5, 2009 5:02 pmOctober 5, 2009 5:02 pm

When Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Monday that it was “imperative” that military advice to the president on Afghanistan remain “private,” he left little doubt that he was talking about Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. (See related article.)

Mr. Gates’s muted admonishment followed quite a bit of discussion and chatter about remarks made last week by Mr. McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, just a few days before a meeting occurred aboard Air Force One with President Obama.

One of the more revealing lines was General McChrystal’s swipe at a limited alternative strategy floated by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., which the general said would result in “Chaos-istan,” a rather blunt assessment at a time when the administration is weighing whether to escalate the troop presence there amid increasing national and international upset over the war’s duration.

Many on the right are saying that Mr. Gates’ comments are signs that the president prefers to get his military advice on Afghanistan from “yes men.” Says John Noonan on The Weekly Standard’s The Blog, “While President Bush sacrificed personal popularity and political viability on the altar of military victory and Senator McCain campaigned on ‘I’d rather lose an election than lose a war,’ Mr. Obama has demonstrated time and time again that he’s not made of stern enough stuff to run a wartime White House.”

Erick Erickson writes on RedState that Mr. Gates’s comments signaled the beginning of an Obama campaign “to throw McChrystal under the bus” because he “dares to think winning in Afghanistan is possible.”

But Michael Cohen at Democracy Arsenal, traces the recent history of presidential reliance on the generals, finding that the mild upbraiding of Mr. McChrystal from both General Jim Jones and Mr. Gates suggested that this administration would shift decision-making back to the White House.

At the White House briefing on Monday afternoon, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, sidestepped several questions from reporters about whether administration officials were perturbed by General McChrystal’s remarks. While saying he wasn’t privy to the private conversation between Mr. Obama and the general last Friday, he also said: “The President had a very constructive meeting about what’s going on in Afghanistan, not what’s going on in — on cable television.”

House and Senate leaders will meet with Mr. Obama on Tuesday to discuss the formation of new Afghanistan strategies.

Dalai Lama Snub?

Bloggers and pundits haven’t let go of the Olympic defeat sustained by President Obama and a cadre of White House aides in Copenhagen. Despite the fact that Mr. Obama was gone for less than a day, some right-leaning bloggers keep invoking the trip in talking about other developments on the world stage.

Several conservative writers criticized President Obama’s decision to defer a meeting with the Dalai Lama during his visit here this week, seeing it as too big a concession to China. The Washington Post indicated that this would be the first time since 1991 that the Tibetan spiritual leader will visit Washington and not meet with the president.

The National Review notes that Mr. Obama had time to go to Copenhagen to lobby, albeit unsuccessfully, for Chicago to be the site of the 2016 Olympics, yet he can’t seem to make time this week for the Dalai Lama. On their blog, The Campaign Spot, they write: “The Obama presidency: Time for the International Olympic Committee, time for David Letterman, and time for light sabers, but no time for the Dalai Lama.”

Ouch — slipping in Letterman, too.

Over at Commentary Magazine, Jennifer Rubin questions whether overtures to China would advance the objectives of the United States.

Once again we are left gaping at the disingenuosness of an indefensible policy and pondering how a Jimmy Carter – like approach to our adversaries, minus any affection for human rights, is going to work in practice.

Well, for starters, we have yet to see positive results from all that “goodwill.” The Chinese have yet to lift a finger to reel in North Korea, and they remain opposed to sanctions against Iran. So what are we buying by selling out human rights and democracy? Nothing so far.

More Olympics

When several conservatives cheered the decision by the International Olympic Committee to give the 2016 games to Rio de Janeiro, their glee was met by immediate scorn from the left. Now some pundits are wondering whether the right-wing piling-on is helping to galvanize the left and Democrats to stand up more quickly and more forcefully to right-wing criticism, which gets a lot of play on right-wing radio, cable news and the blogs.

“Are Conservatives Helping Obama With the Left,” reads the headline on a blog post by Philip Klein in The American Spectator.

I don’t mean this as a swipe against military strategists but the simple truth is that they’ve gotten things wrong many times in the past.

And for John Noonan to say that President Bush didn’t politicize the Iraq War is the biggest crock of snit I’ve ever heard. Against the advice of countless generals, he went into Iraq with far too few troops just as Rummy insisted, while being cheerleaded by John McCain.

I don’t think you can spin this loss quite so easily. :) The reason is that this loss tells us a lot about the Obama administration. In particular, it tells us that they do not have a firm grip on reality and that they severely overestimated the impact of President Obama’s meeting with the IOC.

I think the most elegant explanation for this loss is that Obama was desperate for some good news -something that made him look like a winner -and that he was thrilled by the idea of having a huge capstone event to celebrate his Presidency.

Normally, this loss would not be a big deal…except in this case Obama has accomplished so little up until now. This loss potentially locked in a view that Obama is in over his head and that it was a mistake to elect an inexperienced celebrity to be our President…

I wasn’t trying to spin this loss – in my book a loss, is a loss, is a loss. My point was that regardless of what Pres. Obama does or doesn’t do, there is a cadre of critics that will attack him no matter what. By the way, I felt, and continue to feel, that Pres. Bush’s most extreme critics (e.g. Olbermann) did and do the same thing.

HLC,
You asked me what topic is it that I differ with Sen Durbin.
Well, it’s his unquestionned support of Israel, which is probably not helping Israel in the long term.

John C Drew, Ph.D,
You sure make a complicated interpretation of Obama’s motives. He tried to help the city that helped him reach the presidency. It’s as simple as that. I don’t think anyone would ever write a thesis on the matter. If you find it intriguing, fine.
As far as your comment “inexperienced celebrity”, nonsense.

It is unfortunate that the President chose not to meet with the Dalai Lama. The United States should seriously weigh Chinese “sensibilities” in this area, not only because China has treated Tibet shamefully, but also because the Dalai Lama is a genuine world leader in the cause for peace.

As to General McChrystal’s self-created flap, the shame is all on him. His theatrics sound embarrassingly like those of General MacArthur , who thought he was more important than his country. Any general who thinks he can fight a war without popular support is living in a dream world.

And I am particularly bemused by the commenter who thought Bush “sacrificed his popularity” to accommodate his generals. Odd, it seemed to me that Bush hyped his popularity, and then had to scramble to keep up with the generals’ realization — a few body bags later –that “war lite” wasn’t going to work. I dunno, is Mr. Noonan an acclaimed military historian or something?

Finally, Mr. Drew: you are an expert on the Olympics? If not, I suggest your opinion is worth no more than mine — which is that, the only way Chicago had a prayer of consideration was by bringing in Obama, the rock star. They lost, as you said, no big deal.

Michael, thanks for the answer to my question on another thread. I agree with you, BTW, and feel the same about my congresswoman. But then the same can be said of most of our elected representatives in both houses of Congress.

Helen, your comment about Gen. MacArthur is interesting. I wonder whether the current case will end the same way

They say that *ignorance is bliss and knowledge power*.
American blogging culture is not only super-insular and dogmatic but above all historically ignoramus at best. They’d not bother to check what goes on elsewhere. Doesn’t matter rightist or leftist blogs, the content is more or less same. And remains centred on their peerceeption of a reality far away in Hindu Kush – even if they’ve no knowledge of its ancient history and civilization.

Bottom line is that foreign military forces – especially US/EU (white) combat forces – will be despised and destroyed ultimately. That’s the nature of the beast and its cultural tradition against foreign occupation forces.

POTUS is right if he chooses to correct his socalled *war of necessity* into something more manageable and get rid of Holbrooke & Co since their basic knowledge and background is not from SouthAsian subcontinent and its strategic framework of political forces on the ground.

It might surprise some to learn that the solution of Afgahn imbroglio lies – not in AfPak policy – but ameliorating US-Iran relations and eliminating Sunni-Paks/ISI goal of keeping pro-indian forces out of the game in Kabul. Holbrooke is NOT the man for the job!

Generals are not stupid. I don’t believe McChrystal didn’t realize he was politicking for his views of Afghan War strategy, knowing full well the president had not made up his mind. The president is the commander-in-chief and sets our international policies not generals.

MoeB,
I agree.
A new Gen. MacArthur?
On the fringes of our military, there exists the idea that our two wars are based on a religious conflict. “They’re spreading rapidly across Western Europe and they’re against our way of life”.

MoeB,
Unfortunately, I share, a bit, McChrystal’s view that we must try to leave a better country behind.
(but is this doable??)
It’s painful for me, since I was against both wars from their conception.

PS: I did not mean to include the general with the fringe,
though, I doubt the brass is doing much to dissuade the crusade mentality.

Military decisions are too important to be left in the hands of one general, a full consensus must be obtained. Harry Truman shot down the high flying McArthur rightly and totally despite that generals overwhelming public support, and McChrystal doesn´t even have that. The commander in chief sits in the White House, PERIOD!

Several conservative writers criticized President Obama’s decision to defer a meeting with the Dalai Lama during his visit here this week, seeing it as too big a concession to China. The Washington Post indicated that this would be the first time since 1991 that the Tibetan spiritual leader will visit Washington and not meet with the president. . So what and who care about this bag of rag that grifts between nations to receive his money for being a CIA stooge, He is not a lama and Barack should drop this lama that owned 6,000 serfs as he was fleeing to India. His little medieval theocracy came crashing down after subjecting millions of Tibetans as nothing more than chattel or speaking tools with a life expectancy of 34 under the Lamas compared to 67 under the Chinese. All his predecessors and including this 14th DL knew of our Bill Of Rights, Emmancipation Proclamtion and yet they continued a system that gave out mutilations as Justice.
Now of course he denounces all of it, still he is guilty of crimes against his own people. We must stop using former employees of the CIA as religious icons.It sets a poor example for the young. Obama please drop this Lama and attend to the affairs of your own people.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…